There is a great deal to be said on the whole issue of UKIP and Europe, but for now, I’ll sketch out some initial thoughts I would like to offer on UKIP’s recent apparent success and what I see as the wider issues.

1. People flock to leaders and want their ‘Messiah’. This is partly out of timidity and laziness. It’s easier – and safer – to rely on others and vote with the herd rather than risk oneself. It’s also the ‘human’ thing to do under certain conditions. The human mind is an organic system in its own right and can be shaped and moulded by certain influences. In the distant past, our early human ancestors had hive-like minds that equipped them to work in groups, which were essential for survival. These survival instincts have not left us, even in this ‘liberal’ society in which the concept of the ‘individual’ can take on its full force and expression. Modern politicians, like ancient rulers, are essentially psychologists with a shrewd understanding of these mind traps. Our potential as human beings is boundless, but our minds can also be suffocated and bound like Lotus feet. At the moment, the electorate are trapped within their ‘Lotus minds’, which gives expression to politically-illiterate choices, like UKIP.

2. As a practical concept, ‘democracy’ is largely bogus in the West. Quaddafi’s Libya had more democracy than we do. That we automatically tend to think of our people as ‘voters’ or the ‘electorate’ reflects how so-called ‘politics’ alienates them, us, from our true material interests. Most of those who opted for UKIP have no economic stake in society – though many are deluded in the belief that they do – and will not be affected one way or the other by UK membership of the EU. Yet they convince themselves that “We need to leave the EU, innit”….”We dunt wont foreigners runnin’ our cuntry, gov”, etc. Politics is not politics. It is a kind of anti-politics that is, quite literally, detached from reality. A similar observation can be made for voters and supporters of most, if not all, the other parties. It’s not just UKIP voters.

3. The issue of the EU is largely a red herring and has little to do with Nationalism. It’s a distraction from two overarching issues of our time: 1. identity and culture, and their root, race; and 2. the end of capitalism and its replacement with democracy. The one major point that many Nationalists and pseudo-Nationalists miss, mainly because most other people miss it, is something learnt from the writings of the Jewish philosopher and historian, Oswald Spengler, which is that once people start referring to a ‘Civilisation’ as such, capitalised, then that civilisation is in terminal decline. While ‘mainstream’ society is preoccupied with membership of the EU and other marginal issues, the hierarchical system itself is crumbling.

4. Dealing with the first issue: Whether the EU is an elite club for capitalists or a Euro-Bolshevik plot or something in-between, the reality is that non-whites will continue to want to travel to and enter the UK, legally or illegally, regardless of whether we are members of the EU. They did so before we joined the then-EEC, and they will continue to do so long after we leave the EU. UKIP itself is not committed to secession from the EU. Instead, it talks about ‘withdrawal’, which – I would suggest – could be interpreted in lots of different ways. For instance, ‘withdrawal’ could be interpreted to mean ‘radical reform’: the EU itself has sufficient institutional flexibility that it could encompass ‘multi-speed’ memberships. It already does, in effect, in that while EFTA and the regional Neighbourhoods are separate organisations, they act in concert with the EU and are – in reality – simply extensions of EU power. That is not to get teleological about Continental federalism, something that has – admittedly – gathered a sense of inevitability about it. This is not a question of ‘liking’ the EU, more a matter of acknowledging the reality that there is a possible middle-ground between narrow and obstinate Anglo-Saxon delusions of cyclopic autarky on the one hand and Napoleonic centralism on the other.

5. Turing to the second issue, the capitalist system itself is not sustainable. Eventually it will be abolished and replaced with a society based on co-operation and the control, use and distribution of resources for human need. Some people call this type of system ‘socialism’. It can also be called ‘co-operation’ or ‘democracy’. I think the best term for it is ‘democracy’ because it involves the realisation of human need in material reality – a literal democracy. Whereas today, in capitalism, human needs are cast aside or treated as spent and ignored, and with it we sacrifice such things as dignity, love, worth and value, in the democracy, dignity, love, worth and value will be central to decision-making. The first question is whether such a society can exist without meaningful culture. I think the answer to that has to be ‘no’. People need the glue of identity. That being the case, we need to ask: Where does culture come from? Or, How does culture arise? The Nationalist position is that culture escheats to race. Even in a truly mixed-racial society, cultures would arise and with it, loyalties and identities – and thus races would evolve again.

6. These are the really interesting questions, and in my opinion, the mammoth and fundamental issues they raise cast UKIP and all the political babble of the elites – of whom UKIP are an intrinsic part – into total insignificance. If I were to broadcast these thoughts to a mainstream audience, they would think me mad and call for me to be sectioned – and in a sense they would be right, in that it is ‘mad’ to break out of the ‘Lotus mind’. Nevertheless, I believe that all we now know and feel sure of will be swept aside, and one day, the things we know will seem like a joke to our descendants. I think this is where projects like WIN come into play, and also what I call the ‘leader syndrome’. Going back to the way the human mind (as opposed to the brain) has evolved organically, all of us, without exception, are still burdened with this primitive cringe of looking for leaders to give us an answer to our problems. Organised religion is the ultimate expression of this, but religious believers, especially Christians, are easy to sneer at in this regard while overlooking the ways in which outbreaks of dim consciousness in our supposedly ‘sophisticated’ and ‘rational’ secular society can resemble a Moonie craze or the weird enactments of some other strange religious sect: UKIP being a case in point, itself a kind of personality cult for the credulous and the clueless. Projects such as WIN are ahead of the curve, so to speak, in that – to my mind – they point the way to a democratic/communal style of Nationalism. Unless people can act for themselves and break out of their Lotus minds, nothing will change.